This is why I wonder what advantage the D600 AF sensor has over the 6D, except for tracking.

If the spot you're trying to af is a difficult one it makes a large difference if you've got helper points around or if the camera is stuck with trying to lock with the one af point all over. Admittedly, this doesn't happen all the time, but as an option it should make the af much more reliable like the 5d3/1dx's focus point expansion.

Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained :-) ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

You still don't understand it... All the sensors that say focusing at f/5.6 WILL of course also focus with faster lenses at 2.8. The vertical sensitive f/2.8 line will be additionally to the cross-type if you use a f/2.8 or faster lens... Basic physics...

BUT... the IQ is unbelievable. Compared to my 7D they are not even in the same ballpark even though it is only $600 more than a 7D.

For anyone that is thinking about switching I highly recommend renting a D600 like I did. At LensRentals it was ~$200 to rent it with a 24-70 f/2.8G for 5 days. During that time I was able to find out if I could live with the ergonomics issues (I definitely can... it won't ever be as good as my 7D in ergonomics.... but the tradeoff is worth it) and put it through its paces in a variety of environments.

What did I find out? That the D600 is a _tool_. What I mean by that is that by the end of my rental period I trusted the D600 as much as I do a hammer or a saw. _It_ takes care of capturing the photo... _I_ take care of choosing the photo I want to capture. Yes, even in that short amount of time I came to just trust the D600. The metering is so spot on I didn't have to worry about it. The Auto-ISO is unbelievably good (since you can actually set limits on things like shutter speeds and min/max ISO!). The AF is spot on (although I do lament having to focus and recompose a bit... I got used to not needing to do that on my 7D).

It all adds up to a package where even though the ergonomics are a bit off... it simply doesn't matter because you don't interact with this camera as much as with a Canon... you simply set a bunch of sensible limits and then let the camera do its thing and you come out on the other side with incredible photos.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

Even then, it's hard to believe that the IQ could actually be better. That's what I'm talking about about the D600. The IQ is _so_ good that with 14bits I just don't know that it can get any better (at ISO 100 which is what I REALLY care about). Now, that is just the raw IQ... a lot of other stuff goes into "picture quality"... I'm sure that metering can be better and white balance can be better and AF can be better and long exposure could be possibly be better (and I'm sure you might get all of that in the 1DmkIII). But, if all of those are the same (ie, in a testing environment) I simply don't see how you can really beat the D600.

But I will give you that in the field I am sure the 1DmkIII produces beautiful images... possibly better than the D600 (never shot with it myself). But, for my dollar I cannot imagine them being 3x better. Especially since they are at half the resolution (which is important in the landscape shooting I like to do).

I really think that to get better IQ at low ISO than the D600 we're going to need another leap in sensor tech. It's going to take a different sensor design... and definitely more bits in our analog to digital converters to get more out of a scene than the D600 does.

Please don't take me as a troll or anything... I'm just a guy that did what a lot of people around here won't do: I _tried_ the competition. There are many cameras out there... and each person is going to have different needs. But when it comes to comparing raw low ISO IQ I think you're going to have a hard time beating a D600...

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

+1

I use Canon since I bought an used A-1 in the middle of the 80ies, before I started flying at the BW. After that I used the T-90 and The Eos 5, 3 and 1V. All very good Cameras. Innovative and worth the money you had to pay for it.But meanwhile, other competitors are more innovative and producing Cameras that are even cheaper and better than Canon Cameras.

I the company I´m working, we switched to Nikon, and that was the right decision. As I was one of the proponents to buy the EOS 5D Mk3, I was dissatisfied by the IQ. There was an visible difference in the IQ to the D800.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

+1000

I bought into the Canon system when they were the price/performance leader.Man, how things have changed since then.

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600.

I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO. ISO 100 on a 7D looks like ~ISO700 on a D600. It's not even close.... and it is something that I can see on my 27" iMac when looking at a fullscreen picture. The D600 is _clean_ the 7D is damn noisy anywhere there is a somewhat solid color. The frustrating thing about the 7D noise is that if I go to take it out I lose detail. If I leave it in and do any sharpening it comes blasting to the foreground (much like trying to sharpen up photos from a point and shoot... although, of course, it's not THAT bad).

There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

That is possibly true but it doesn't mean much. I could make a 24" print from my old XSi that would probably look pretty damn close to a 5D3 (if I managed to get the exposure and everything nailed and did a bit of postprocessing work to heighten the contrast and DR). Almost anyone would have trouble distinguishing prints from 12mp+ DSLRs from the past 4 years on a 24" print.... especially when viewed from normal viewing distances

I can't stand it when people say "but you don't print larger than X!". Going by that standard we should all still be at 10mp like Mr. Rockwell advocates. That statement means absolutely nothing and should not be taken as a reason to have noisy sensors with less DR...

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

That outdoor shot with the buildings is particularly telling... look at the noise in the sky. The D600 is damn clean with excellent contrast and detail on the buildings... which is what I've been after for a while now.... and for just $2100 I can have it. Even spending $3500 on a new Canon body won't give it to me! WTH.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

I definitely agree with all of that - and that's why I'm switching. Canon costs have just been out of proportion with the competition recently... and I've been disappointed with the IQ and specs for the price. If the 5dmk3 were ~$2k or even $2.5k and the 6D were ~$1500 I might stick around. If the new 24-70 was ~$2k. Or how about those new primes.... $900 for a 24mm f/2.8 IS?

But Canon seems to believe that it can keep jacking up prices and we'll keep paying them. I, for one, am not sticking around to see what happens next.

I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO.

With all due respect...post properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.

That said...personal use will have some variance vs. professional testing because of exposure variance. The 7D is not very tolerant of underexposure, and I'll be the first to say if this concerns you then go FF. Also, the technique to get the most out of a crop sensor is different from that of a full frame one. (Actually the processing steps are the same, but the values at each step can be very different.)

Quote

That is possibly true but it doesn't mean much. I could make a 24" print from my old XSi that would probably look pretty damn close to a 5D3 (if I managed to get the exposure and everything nailed and did a bit of postprocessing work to heighten the contrast and DR).

Less fine detail would give it away, at least for landscape prints. Though the difference still wouldn't be as great as many would expect.

Quote

I can't stand it when people say "but you don't print larger than X!". Going by that standard we should all still be at 10mp like Mr. Rockwell advocates.

99.9% of images never see that size. I don't advocate sticking to 10 MP because of that, but it's also silly to get worked up over differences that can only be seen at 100% in PS.

Quote

I don't do a lot of high ISO shooting so I can't comment on that. Go look at other reviews though... like this one from Gizmodo that compares it directly to a 5dmk3:

I give more weight to IR and DPReview because of the precision of their testing and because I can obtain and process the files myself. What too many people over look is that even tiny variations in exposure and settings can make very large differences in 100% views.

Quote

But Canon seems to believe that it can keep jacking up prices and we'll keep paying them. I, for one, am not sticking around to see what happens next.

That's a fair assessment. I really, really like Canon's lens library and have a significant investment there, so I'll see what the next year or two brings. (I also hate Nikon ergonomics, but I could adapt.) But I'm much more frustrated with their pricing than their products.

With all due respect...post properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.

I totally agree with this (that I haven't shown proof)... but unfortunately I didn't have a good basis to compare them on. My 17-55 f/2.8 is broken at the moment (one of the reasons I'm thinking of switching... because I have to buy new glass anyway) and I didn't think that anyone would care to see 7D shots with a 18-55 f3.5-f5.6 IS I compared to a D600 with a 24-70 f/2.8G.

I did take one shot with my "broken" 17-55 at 17mm (where it is stuck) and the D600 at 24mm mounted on the same tripod with the same view. It's a crappy photo (light was really bad at the time... tons of haze from fires in the mountains and really cloudy) but it does show just how much difference there is in noise between the two at ISO 100. Unfortunately, I didn't go further than that (should have taken a series of ISO shots on each to compare)... but, while I had the camera I was having too much fun actually taking photos like this one: http://500px.com/photo/14938023 to think about doing "testing" too much. I'll see if I can post the full res versions of each a little later.

So you're absolutely right that I have no hard proof... but, if you can't tell, I'm a pixel peeper at heart... and I've been peeping at the 7D for a year over tens of thousands of photos... and on my honor as a pixel peeper the D600 is miles ahead... ;-)